A.C. No.

5712

June 29, 2005

FRANCISCO LORENZANA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. CESAR G. FAJARDO, respondent.
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Francisco Lorenzana, complainant, charges respondent Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo with
violation of the Civil Service Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and seeks his disbarment from the practice of the law profession.
In a verified complaint dated May 27, 2002, complainant alleged that respondent, while
employed as Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila, until his retirement
on May 15, 2002, was a member of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon
City, receiving a monthly honorarium of P4,000.00.1 He was also a member of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches Proper, also receiving a monthly allowance/
honorarium.2
Complainant also alleged that respondent was engaged in the private practice of law,
receiving acceptance fees ranging from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00. He lives in a house and
lot owned by complainants family without paying any rental and refuses to leave the place
despite the latters demands.
Asked to comment on the complaint, respondent countered that his membership in the
PLEB of Quezon City, representing the NGO, was without fixed compensation. He reported
only once a week in the afternoon for which he received only per diems allowed under
Section 43 par. (c) of Republic Act No. 6975.3 As regards his designation as a member of
the Lupong Tagapamayapa, the same is authorized under Section 406 of the Local
Government Code of 1991; and his monthly allowance/honorarium is allowed under
Section 393.
While he received allowances, honoraria and other emoluments as member of the PLEB and
of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, even as he is in the government service, the same is
authorized by law. Hence, there was no double compensation. He admitted having appeared
as private counsel in several cases. However, his clients were his relatives and friends,
among them were complainants father and brother Ricardo. He emphasized that his
services were pro bono.
Respondent denied that the lot on which his house is built belongs to complainants family.
In fact, it is now the subject of an "Accion Publiciana" filed against him by one Dionisio delos
Reyes before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100.
In a Resolution dated January 20, 2003, we referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

IBP Commissioner Doroteo B. Aguila, who conducted the investigation, found that
respondents appointment as a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Town
Proper, Novaliches, Quezon City, while concurrently employed as a legal officer of the
Manila Urban Settlements Office is not unlawful. Such appointment is in accordance with
the Local Government Code of 1991. Nor could respondent be found liable for receiving
honoraria as a Lupon member, since the Local Government Code of 1991
authorizes Lupon members to receive honoraria, allowances, and other emoluments. With
respect to respondents appointment as PLEB member, IBP Commissioner Aguila stated
that the same is not an exception to the prohibition against dual appointments or
employment of government officials or employees.
IBP Commissioner Aguila found that respondents court appearances as counsel for
litigants do not constitute private practice of law since complainant failed to show that he
received compensation. However, respondent should still be held liable for violation of Civil
Service Rules and Regulations since he failed to show that he was permitted by his Office to
appear as counsel for his clients.
On August 30, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2003-93
quoted as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and in view of
respondents accepting appointment as Board Member of the Peoples Law Enforcement
Board of Quezon City while he was still employed as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban
Settlement Office, Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) month and hereby REPRIMANDED with stern WARNING for failing to obtain written
permission from his superiors to appear as counsel to certain relatives and friends as
required by Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
The prohibition against government officials and employees, whether elected or appointed,
from concurrently holding any other office or position in the government is contained in
Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution which provides:
"Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive
official shall hold any other office or 2employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries."4
In trying to justify his appointment as PLEB member, respondent invoked Section 43 (c) of
R.A. No. 69755 quoted below which, according to him, is the law allowing him to be
appointed as such member of the Quezon City PLEB.
"Section 43. Peoples Law Enforcement Board
xxxxxxxxx

(c) Compensation, Membership in the PLEB is a civic duty. However, PLEB members may be
paid per diem as may be determined by the city or municipal council from city or municipal
funds."
It is clear that this provision pertains only to the compensation of PLEB members. It cannot
be construed as an exception to the Constitutional and statutory prohibition against dual
or multiple appointments of appointive public employees.
Respondent also failed to establish that his primary functions as Legal Officer of the Manila
Urban Settlements Office allow his appointment as PLEB member, an exception to dual
appointment prohibited by the Constitution and the statutes. Indeed, respondent, in
accepting such appointment, has transgressed the Constitution, the Administrative Code of
1987, and the Local Government Code of 1991. Being contra leges, respondent also violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Attorneys Oath.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
These duties are further enshrined in the Attorneys Oath, which every lawyer in this
jurisdiction has to take before he is allowed to practice law. The Attorneys Oath states in
part that every lawyer "shall support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities"
The lawyers paramount duty to society is to obey the law. For of all classes and
professions, it is the lawyer who is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws, for he is their
sworn servant.6 Sadly, respondent failed to fulfill this exacting duty.
On respondents appointment as a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay
Novaliches Proper, while serving as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban Settlements Office,
we agree with the IBP Investigating Commissioner that the same is in order, being allowed
by law.
"Section 406. Character of Office and Service of Lupon Members
xxxxxxxxx
(b) The lupon or pangkat members shall serve without compensation, except as provided for
in Section 393 and without prejudice to incentives as provided for in this Section and in
Book IV of this Code. The Department of Interior and Local Government shall provide for a
system of granting economic or other incentives to the lupon orpangkat members who
adequately demonstrate the ability to judiciously and expeditiously resolve cases referred to
them. While in the performance of their duties, the lupon or pangkat members,
whether in public or private employment, shall be deemed to be on official time, and
shall not suffer from any diminution in compensation or allowance from said
employment by reason thereof."

The above provision allows government officials and employees to sit

as lupon or pangkat members. The phrase "whether in public or private employment"
sustains respondents posture.
We now determine whether respondent engaged in the practice of law while employed as
Legal Officer V in the Manila Urban Settlement Office. Private practice of law contemplates
a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the
public as a lawyer.7 Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent
or customary action a succession of acts of the same kind. The practice of law by attorneys
employed in the government, to fall within the prohibition of statutes has been interpreted
as customarily habitually holding ones self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding
payment for such services.8
In the case at bar, respondents appearance as counsel is not merely isolated. Evidence
presented by complainant shows that he had an extensive practice of law. While employed
as a Legal Officer in the Urban Resettlement Office of Manila, he maintained a law office.
The pleadings he signed as "counsel" for his clients filed with the courts indicate his office
address as "Room 201 7 JA Building, 244 Gen. Luis St., Novaliches, Quezon City."
Following is the letter head appearing on the letters and envelopes9 sent to his clients:
"Cesar G. Fajardo
Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law
Room 201 7 J & A Building
244 Gen. Luis St., Novaliches
Quezon City."
Respondent cannot justify his practice of law by claiming that his office (the Manila Urban
Resettlement) is "not really strict when it comes to appearing in some private cases as they
(employees) were sometimes called to render service even on holidays without additional
compensation." At most, he should have asked written permission from his chief as
required by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules that "(n)o officer or
employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation or profession or be
connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial undertaking without a
written permission from the head of the Department."
As to respondents alleged unlawful stay on complainants property affecting his conduct as
a member of the Bar, suffice it to state that any discussion on this issue is premature since
the case is still pending in the RTC, Branch 100, Quezon City.
Anent the penalty to be imposed, as mentioned earlier, the IBP Board of Governors
recommended that respondent be suspended for one (1) month for accepting a prohibited
appointment as a member of the PLEB of Quezon City and be reprimanded for failing to
obtain a written permission from his "superiors" to appear as counsel "for certain friends
and relatives." We believe that a heavier penalty should be imposed upon him for he
transgressed not only the statutes but the very fundamental law itself, in violation of his
Attorneys Oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court reads:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore. A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which is he is required to take before
admission to practice, for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court or
for corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice (Stress supplied).
WHEREFORE, for accepting employment as a member of the PLEB of Quezon City while
concurrently employed as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban Settlement Office, in violation
of the Constitution and the statutes, which in turn contravene his Attorneys Oath and
Code of Professional Responsibility; and by engaging in the illegal practice of law, Atty.
Cesar G. Fajardo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months effective from notice and is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that any repetition of
similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be spread upon
the records of Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo; the Office of the Court Administrator to be furnished
to the courts of the land for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, (Chairman), Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concur.